Talk:English law/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Law of England and Wales 2 How many states? 3 ECHR 4 Renaming this page 5 Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd. 6 English Law vs. UK law

[edit] Law of England and Wales

This article appears to contain a number of inaccuracies:

• there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as English law, just the law of England and Wales. The title of the article should reflect this.
• the article conflates English law with common law. The two are not one and the same. The law of England and Wales is composed of common law, equity, statute law, EU law etc. English law can be described as a "common law" system, which is perhaps where the confusion comes from.
• to say "European Union Law is effective in the UK" is a misleading over-simplification.

I'll correct this in a few days if nobody objects.

BobTheLawyer 22:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that English law is not right, but English and Welsh law isn't right either -- it implies there are two separate jurisdictions. The usual form is "the Law of England and Wales". Could you change to that title (obviously with a sensible redirect). Francis Davey 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is very thin, and not the quality of introductory article which we might desire. It would be good if someone with the necessary knowledge could expand it considerably, and sub-divide it. --Doric Loon 21:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since the devolution of Wales, the reference to the law of "England and Wales" in the first line should properly be the laws of England only. (At least from a lawyer's perspective!)

Sadly, this page made no legal sense. The correct legal term is "English law" and that term expressly includes all the legally enforceable material comprising the English and Welsh "laws". It has been a single unified system from time immemorial and constiutites a single state. I have therefore rewritten the page and moved it back to English law. David91 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In your introduction you make it sound like Wales is governed by an English parliament and that that justifies calling the law English not English and Welsh. This was true until 1536 but since then the parliament in London represented England and Wales. In 1707 it became the British parliament. So if the British parliament makes laws for England and Wales how can those laws be 'English?' Scots law passed by the UK parliament was never called English so why is English and Welsh law?

Historically, the law was not derived from a Parliament (sitting wherever) but the common law developed by the courts. Now the fact is that England and Wales have a single legal system, where judges follow (and are bound to follow) each other's decisions. This has the effect that the law is identical in both countries except where a statute or rule explicitly makes them different (and even then they will be subject to the same rules of interpretation). Scots law has a completely different historical background and also is adminstered by different courts. That's why it is treated as a separate system. Even where the same law (i.e. statute or regulation) exists in both countries because it was passed by the UK Parliament, the courts in England and Wales might take a different view of its meaning to those in Scotland. Francis Davey 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely accept that the Law in England and Wales is the same. I also accept that since 1536 when Wales was legally joined to England historical Welsh Law was lost and historical English law replaced it. What I object to is this article, and indeed many legal professionals, calling this combined law now in use in England and Wales 'English Law.' Since 1536 and the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England the Common Law has been created and applied equally by cases in England and Wales, therefore it is not English Common Law but English and Welsh Common Law. I also accept that for centuries Wales was ignored in legal nomenclature and the term 'England' used when England and Wales was meant. However in recent times people have accepted that even though England is bigger it should not totally obliterate Wales and that nomenclature should be accurate. The law used in New Zealand is based on English law and has many features in common with it and until very recently its highest court of appeal was the London based Privvy Council. However despite this close link to English law, we still call it New Zealand Law. We do this because the judgements made in New Zealand are made by New Zealand judges and the statutes passed by Parliament are made by MPs elected by the New Zealand people. The same situation occurs in Wales, statute law is passed by parliament made up of Welsh and English, and indeed Scottish, MPs. Courts operate with Welsh and English professionals. If you look at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/home.law you will read about 'The Law Society of England and Wales.' On page http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/ you will read about the 'Bar Council of England and Wales'. On page http://www.dca.gov.uk/legalsys/lsreform.htm#part3 the 'Report of the Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales December 2004.' On page http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/index.htm 'Her Majesty's Courts Service' for England and Wales. On page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030701/am/30701s01.htm a discussion in the House of Lords on 'The Commission for Peace in England and Wales' which covers the magistrates service of England and Wales. In other words the legal professional bodies and the government all refer to the law in England and Wales. It seems only natural therefore that a wikipedia article on the law used in England and Wales equally, by professionals who are members of England and Wales bodies, should and would be titled 'The Law of England and Wales' and not 'English Law.'

I agree that the usage "English law" is hard to defend, although it is difficult to persuade people to replace a short term by a longer one. However it is pretty much universal as a way of describing that law that operates in England and Wales. In other words, it is not only the common term, but the academically accepted term for the law in my jurisdiction. I am called to the Bar of England and Wales, but I practice in English law. What you are suggesting -- and I have a lot of sympathy for it -- is that the title of this article ought to be altered to reflect the way that the term ought to be applied not the way the language is used. I'm not sure wikipedia is the right place or way to do that. The article title reflects usage, right or wrong. Note also, English law is a single system of law with historical roots in England only. An article on "the law of england and wales" would not correctly cover the period before the laws in Wales acts. Those acts extended English law to cover Wales as well. Its also important to understand that the particular bodies that pass statutory laws that cover a jurisdiction are irrelevant. We are all governed by law from many sources, those sources don't define the legal system in operation, which is more fundamental. As I said, England and Wales have the same law, though there may be different particular rules in different places (within either part as well as between the two). The fact that statutes are passed by this or that body has no relevance. Scots law did not become more Scots with the creation of the Scottish Parliament (or for that matter less Scots with the abolition of the Scots Parliament way back when). Francis Davey 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many states?

I note that the introductory paragraph to the EU Study on the International Law of Succession on page 1 to [[1]] counts six states (abeit that it uses the word jurisdictions), separating Jersey and Guerney citing Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws as their authority. From the POV of Jersey, the Explanatory Notes on the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998, The Probate (General Provision) (Jersey) Regulations 1998 and The Probate (General) (Jersey) Rules, 1998 require a definition of "abroad" to "the Island" (i.e. Jersey). The jurisdictions specified for the purposes of Article 6 (7) have been specified under the Regulations and these are the other parts of the British Isles, namely, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Guernsey (i.e. five other states)[2]. I have asked an ex-colleague of mine to photocopy the relevant pages from some real hard-copy books on Conflict for me. As soon as these are to hand, I will cite chapter and verse to support my assertion that there are five or six states within the composite state for constitutional and public international law purposes (depending on how you count the Bailiwicks). Until then, I have left the page with only the one state iderntified because, to date, that is the only on-line verified source I have identified (good to see an American on the ball whereas the Brits will not get themselves on line to confirm this notorious (in the legal sense of the word) piece of information. David91 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Note, I've all along perfectly been happy to note that there are seven different jurisdictions in the British Isles (counting the Republic of Ireland and Guernsey and Jersey), so your first link shows absolutely nothing that I haven't accepted, and in fact demonstrates that the term 'jurisdiction' is preferred in modern usage (in my view probably because of the confusion this causes). Morwen - Talk 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Republic is a separate nation state and nothing to do with the Royaume Uni in legal terms. In the Republic, the nationality and domicile are the same. I anticipate it will take about a week for my ex-colleague to get the materials to me. However, I should also explain that as in the word "state", so in the word jurisdiction you have to deal in geographical layers, Thus, for some purposes, you use the word as meta- jurisdiction, i.e. as being co-extensive with supranational groupings of nation states, then as a reference to sovereign nation states, and for Conflict purposes, it is limited and co-extensive with the territorial boundaries of the law unit state. As I commented before, this is a very precise legal topic and it is easy to confuse constitutional with substantive legal issues. And the words "state" and "jurisdiction" are not alternatives but have very different sets of meanings depending on the context so you cannot, with respect, conflate usages. I think that relevant individuals would have a British nationality and a domicile in the Isle of Man or any of the other states depending on the status of the parents and subsequent choice. This is a reference to the substantive laws of each state and has nothing as such to do with any jurisdiction that might or might not be exercised by any of the institutions comprising the legal system of those states. I regret that I am an old pedantic and somewhat curmudgeonly ex-lawyer, and so do not mix well with people from completely different cultural generations. However, my age and inability to immediately lay my hands on a book does not mean that I am ever "flat wrong" about things within the scope of my erstwhile expertise. I therefore hope that you will forgive me if I pursue this until all the references are in place. David91 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading the reference fully, I note that section 2.5 of Beale is directly relevant to this. It acknowledges that the term "state" is unsatisfactory due to its ambiguity (having previously referred to the entities described as "legal units"), and even considers inventing a new term, but decides that other terms would be worse. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have now included all the information sent to me. I leave it to all of you to decide whether you want to cut and paste the other definitional elements to the separate pages on the U.K., etc. I am sorry that Dicey and Morris are one of the confusing sets of authors that elect to use "country" rather than "state". Just adds to the confusion that non-lawyers feel when approaching this topic. We are all talking about the same thing,merely using different words to do it. So there you have the black letters. I have other things to get on with so you can all have fun deciding whether this is what the law ought to be saying. David91 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECHR

I would suggest that it is iumportant to remember that ECHR only forms part of English law insofar as the sources of Enlgish law (precedent; Act of Parliament) allow it to do so. It does not apply directly between private parties as they do not come within s. 6. Acts of parliament have to be interpreted consistently with ECHR if possible. Section 2(1) is not in point because although courts are obliged to take in to account ECHR case law the obligation only kicks in if they are concerned with the scope of a Convention right, which is only relevant if s. 6 or s. 3 applies. I.e. they must take into account ECHR jurispurdence to determine the content of a Convention right but that begs the question as to whether they are concerned with a Convention right that is enforceable in between the parites before the court under the Human Rights Act 1998.

--Lucifer(sc) 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not completely sure whether we agree or not, I will set out my understanding of the matter. The HRA provides that that courts and tribunals must, so far as possible, interpret case law and legislation compatibly with the Convention rights. If it is not possible to interpret primary legislation compatibly, then that legislation remains in force but the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility and Parliament should decide whether to amend the legislation to make it compatible. But the Act also requires "public authorities" to act compatibly with Convention rights, unless primary legislation makes that impossible. Public authorities are not directly defined, but s6(3)(a) includes courts and tribunals, and anyone "certain of whose functions are of a public nature". I accept that the lower courts seem to have been giving a restrictive interpretation to s6(2)(b) because of the the problems of privatisation and conracting out. These decisions misunderstand the purpose of the Act and the Convention. Art 1 binds the UK government to ensure effective remedies for breaches of Convention rights. No public body can therefore evade the operation of Convention rights by delegating any of its functions to a private body (see Van der Musselle v Belgium (1983) 6 EHRR 163 and Costello-Roberts v UK (1993) 19 EHRR 112). If the Lords approach in Aston Cantlow (2003) UKHL 37 were more widely accepted, more bodies would be considered bound but until a UK case gets to Strasbourg, the obligation to comply may not be as widespread as it should be or, indeed, as Parliament intended. Nevertheless, the HRA intended the Convention to apply so long as it did not conflict with primary legislation. I therefore prefer a stronger form of words than the one you propose. Unless you have very clearly reasoned objections, I propose to amend your wording to reflect my understanding. David91 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about this overnight and consider this page on English law to be the wrong place for a detailed discussion of these issues. When I have time, I will add the discussion into the pages on the Convention and the HRA itself. My apologies for having set the hare running on the wrong page. David91 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "The HRA provides that that courts and tribunals must, so far as possible, interpret ...legislation compatibly with the Convention rights. If it is not possible to interpret primary legislation compatibly, then that legislation remains in force but the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility and Parliament should decide whether to amend the legislation to make it compatible." The position re. case law is unclear and I'll explain further below. Neither Article 1 nor Article 13 (effective remedies) is incopororated. HRA 98 does not fully incorporate ECHR, thus there will be occassions when the result required by ECHR cannot be implemented by HRA 98.

I agree that a state cannot delegate its obligations to private bodies to evade them, but the appropriate respondent remains the state (for having delegated the power and failed to control the private body properly). The obligations remain unenforceable between private parties unless under a proper analysis the psuedo-private body is to be considered a public body because of its powers, functions, etc. States may be liable for their own acts. They may be liable for the acts of bodies that are properly considered to be public bodies even though they have private elements to them (e.g. nationalised industries, privatised prison companies, etc.). They may be liable for failing to control sufficiently the acts of private parties. In each case the issue is what the state has done or failed to do and it is the state that comes under a duty to make reperation for any violation. It does not follow that genuine private parties come under the direct application of the ECHR. The only section of HRA 98 that is relevant to them is s. 3.

I'm not sure if "the HRA intended the Convention to apply so long as it did not conflict with primary legislation". I do not think it can be assumed that HRA 98 courts to disregard the common law whenever it conflicted with ECHR as this would completely undercut the role of s. 6. It would apply the ECHR to private parties through the back door, because private parties have no rights except those which they can enforce through the courts. If the HRA 98 was to have the effect of repealling the common law insofar as incompatible with ECHR then it could have said so. It is extremely likely that a court will develop the common law to be consistent with ECHR but I am not satisfied that s. 6's application to a court requires this. Given that either view point is arguable I would suggest it is inappropriate to state that HRA 98 does or does not require courts to apply the common law consistently with ECHR.

Finally, I concur in David91's comment of 30/3/6. Which on reflection makes what I've said above a bit silly. Perhaps David91 will be good enough to add my rant also to where he sees fit on the HRA page.

--Lucifer(sc) 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we do agree on the substance of what constitutes the problem. I will do my best to fairly represent your views. It may be a day or two before I can get round to it. So much to do—so little time to do it. David91 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the subject-matter of this page to be not about English Law, but rather, a confused discussion about the legal structure of the United Kingdom. I also find it needless to talk about what constitutes a state (which is obviously an area of public international law, and thus, a link should be made to the appropriate page for this area). It is common knowledge that when reference is made to English law, this is simply a lawyers shorthand of saying the Law of England and Wales. I think, the best way to improve this page is to talk about the English Legal System: -The courts -The common law doctrines developed mainly by the courts- the law of obligations (contract and tort law), equity and trusts, etc (this will obviously need to look at the principle of precendent) -The constitutional framework of England and Wales -etc

If people agree, I will improve the page. A. Arikan

I agree with the comments of A Arikan re. the best way to improve the page. --Lucifer(sc) 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are already good (very good in some cases) articles about the courts of England and Wales, and other aspects of the constitution (which is primarily concerned with the United Kingdom, though not entirely). This page can point to them, but shouldn't try to repeat what is said there. The main purpose of this page is to clarify that there is an EW jurisdiction and to sketch out where else a reader might look for that which is more specific. Francis Davey 12:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming this page

As A. Arikan points out above, 'English law' is a shorthand of the 'Law of England and Wales'. I therefore propose the title of this article is changed to 'Law of England and Wales' out of respect for Wales and for consistency with the other country Law pages which all begin "Law of...". Comments? Objections? Andeggs 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Andeggs had the opportunity of examining the discussion at the top of the page? I'm afraid I object. I know of no standard work that emplys the phrase "Law of England & Wales" with preference to "English law". Wales was made, rightly or wrongly, part of the English state and had its law repaced by that operating in England (see by way of disctinction what happened with the Act of Union betwixt England and Scotland). Do we know of any Welsh lawyers or law students who object to the term "English law"?--Lucifer(sc) 12:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Lucifer(sc). I perfectly understand that the phrase 'English law' is commonly used and have no objection to it being highlighted as a synonym, perhaps in the lead sentence to the article. But I have two points. Firstly, Welsh users of Wikipedia cannot immediately see that this page has direct relevance for them. Secondly, the naming standards seem to have a growing consensus around the format "Law of..." and so it makes sense for this page to comply. Andeggs 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right. I speak as a barrister at this point. "English law" is a system of law. It has at various times operated in various places. To say "Law of England and Wales" rather misses the point. I speak the English language. My dialect is RP. It would be wrong to call the English language "a language in England and Wales" or something similar. I'm not sure I am making the point very clearly, but a body of law need not coincide with a state or geographical unit. For example in the first Bancoult case an important question was whether the Chagos Islands within the British Indian Ocean Territory were covered by English law or not. What is more, historically English law has covered different areas, at one time it covered much of India, at another it did not cover Wales. Francis Davey 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth I concur with Francis Davey and find the Chagos Island point apposite (of course this question arises with any dependent territory of the U.K.) albeit I speak only as a Scots trainee solicitor! I appreciate Andeggs points: could a page be made up saying "Law of England and Wales" that redirects to "English law"? Regarding naming conventions: consistency has its limitations. I don;t think the fact that one generally sees "Law of... [place]" can be equated with it becoming a standard: it is just usually the helpful way of describing the matter usually but not always.--Lucifer(sc) 15:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lord Chief Justice of England changed his title to The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales because he recognised that to ignore Wales is insulting. The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act states:

7 President of the Courts of England and Wales

(1) The Lord Chief Justice holds the office of President of the Courts of England and Wales and is Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

If there are Courts and Judiciary of England and Wales there must be a Law of England and Wales. Wales was legally deannexed from England in 1955 when the Queen declared Cardiff the Welsh capital. In 1964 the Welsh Office was set up and since that date the Secretary of State for Wales has been the UK minister responsible for creating Acts of the UK parliament that applied only to Wales. In 1998 the Government of Wales Act gave the Welsh Assembly the power to make Welsh secondary measures. In 2006 the Government of Wales Act created the legal entity 'Her Majesty in Right of Wales' and from May 2007 the Queen will appoint Welsh Ministers who will request specifically Welsh Orders in Council to be called Welsh Measures which will be the first true Welsh Laws for centuries. The 2006 Act also gives the Welsh Assembly the power to call a referendum on gaining primary law making powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament. In light of all this it is totally unexceptable to leave Wales out of the name of its laws and to defend this by saying well Wales was subordiante to England for centuries so we can ignore recent changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.102.96 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NAME Policy: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Political correctness does not override policy. There's already a separate article on Welsh law which can deal in detail with specifically Welsh legislation as needed. The term English law is used in other countries such as the US and has a more general meaning than the law of England. ..dave souza, talk

[edit] Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd.

Can anyone guide me in this famous case law "Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd.", which decided that an individual and a company are seperate entities. I want the exact judgement given in House Of Lords, and the true name of this case law.

See Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Shimgray | talk | 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Law vs. UK law

Question from someone trying to wrap his head around this concept. Is there a separate body of UK law consisting of Acts of Parliament passed that apply to the entire United Kingdom? Or do such acts merely become part of the separate English, Scots, and N. Irish law codes? --Jfruh (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear what the answer to your question could mean. The UK Parliament passes acts which have "territorial extent" -- sometimes they apply to E, S or NI independently sometimes to all three or any subset; sometimes to areas outside the UK; sometimes to smaller parts of the UK (such as Wales) and so on. There are three legal systems in play in the UK: the law of England and Wales, the Scots law and Northern Irish law. A "UK law" doesn't come into being as a result of the passing of laws applicable to the whole of the UK (partly because they may have very different legal effects in practice). None of the systems have "codes" in any useful manner. There are a few areas of law which are pan-jurisdictional, Immigration Law being the main example, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal covers the whole UK. Francis Davey 14:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the limited law-making powers of the Welsh Assembley, which are likely to be extended, and Wales-specific legislation emanating from Westminster, I think a decent case can be made that the law in Wales is distinct from that in England, FWIW. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree. There has always been legal variation in detail across each jurisdiction (lots of local law in the Metropolis is different), but the key point is that England and Wales have a unified system of courts and binding precedent -- they are a single legal system in that sense. You can be domiciled in England and Wales but not in England or Wales. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand why so say that, but I think that position will be harder to hold if (when) the Welsh Assembley (when does it become a "parliament"? although Northern Ireland manages with an "assembly" too) gets the ability to pass statutes (rather than statutory instruments). The laws of taxation and succession are the same in Wales as in England, so I am not sure that a concept of "domiciled in Wales" would have many practical effects; at least, not yet. But, for example, a company can be incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 such that its registered office can be in Wales only (if I remember my companies law correctly). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, Francis and ALoan. I do really know that there's no such thing as law "code" in UK law, honest -- I just was trying to come up with some shorthand way of saying "the body of Scots/English/N. Irish law as a whole."

Anyway, I'm an American living in a country with a strong federal system, so that's no doubt why I have such a hard time getting my head around this. So, let me use an example to get this straight. The recently passed same-sex civil partnership law applied to the UK as a whole. But court cases related to this law arising in Scotland will be heard by Scots courts under Scots law, in N. Ireland by N. Irish courts under N. Irish law, and in England and Wales by English courts under English law. Do I have that right?

Yes. A good example is that employment law embraces England and Wales and Scotland (its a GB system of law). Laws against discrimination in employment are statutory and apply across GB, but they create a statutory tort (or delict) and that is applied differently in the two jurisdictions. So that aggravated damages are awarded in English and Welsh Employment Tribunals but not in Scottish ones because Scots law has no concept of aggravated damages. Hope that is a good example. It means that I, as an employment practitioner, have to know a bit of Scots law in order to survive in a Scottish employment tribunal. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

-Francis Davey Are aggravated damages synonymous with punitive damages or do they refer to damages that are greater than they would otherwise be to reflect the particular grevious harm of the tortfeasor's conduct upon the victim? If it is the latter it is arguable that Scotland would compensate this without using the term aggravated damages, just as Scots law does not use the terms special and general damages but would nonetheless award compensation for the harm encompassed within those terms.--Lucifer 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Punitive damages are known as exemplary damages and only available in rather restricted circumstances. But, aggravated damages are not compensatory of harm in the way that one might obviously think. If psychiatric injury is occasioned then those are compensated in normal damages (general damages as it happens), and an award can be made for injury to feelings in discrimination cases (which are pretty much the only cases for which aggravated damages are available anyway). The complexity comes because Scots law does not, as you say, separate out damages in this way, whereas an employment tribunal in England and Wales ought to (so authority says). This means that comparing quantum of damages between the two jurisdictions is subtle and not easily done. The Scots approach is more straightforward in my view, but the two approaches are quite different. Francis Davey 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As for territorial extent -- can laws only be passed that apply to one or more of the home nations, or can things get more granular? Could, for instance, a law be passed that applied only to London, or only to Yorkshire, or something? --Jfruh (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but they are normally thought of as local laws and are often passed under a slightly different parliamentary procedure. But there are plenty of examples of laws applying to only some parts of the country. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for interesting clarifications. Regarding the dreaded "tortfeasor" which I don't recall ever having heard of, presumably in Scots law Delict covers roughly the areas that would involve Tort in EnglandandWales. Also, some confusion may arise from thinking of statute as law, when in practice UK (or EEC) statute has to be incorporated into each legal system. Does that sound right? ...dave souza, talk 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A tortfeasor is someone who commits a tort. I don't know if there's an equivalent term in Scotland. Delict does roughly cover the same area as tort.Lucifer 17:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)